Windows Vista

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

You don't ever use the search function? You dont ever have to defrag a drive?
Nope. Like I said, I have very simple needs.

unless you are just using your computer as a typewriter.

Click to expand...

Basically, yes. Also, Firefox, a couple videos and of course, the most important: a terminal to a Unix server (currently using putty which runs fine on very little RAM). I could get rid of Firefox for a simpler browser if needed, though. No more games since most of my old ones don't run on Vista.

As far as the hardware/software issues you've been having - I've heard all the complaints before... the first two years of XP.

Click to expand...

I haven't been complaning about hardware or software, you must be thinking of somebody else. My only complaint - but it's a major one - is that it's slow and a resource-hog for no actual benefit for poor old luser me. Basically: when I bought my computer 1,5 years ago with Vista on it, as is, out of the box, it did not run fine. That's a pretty big concern for me, and it's the first time I have experienced this with a Windows.

Even then I'm pretty sure that my stock Vista box boots up faster than my trimmed down and "fast" custom XP media center. And that takes about seventy seconds from post.

Click to expand...

Stock Vista here. A full reboot from point to point (necessary everytime I have hardware problems) took probably something like 2 minutes, a little less with SP1. Stock XP was much quicker, though I don't have the computer anymore to check precisely.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

Good news for you, you can put a couple extra sticks of RAM in your computer
So, what you're telling me is that to get something like a service as decent as I could get with '95 on 12Mb of RAM or XP on 256Mb, I need 2 Go - 8 times as much as XP? Expense aside, thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather pass and move on to an OS that's not such an insane ressource-hog.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

Yes, but will it run flawlessly on 1GB of RAM or less for our french buddy? Somehow I doubt it.

Well, if you're telling me they haven't fixed the insane ressource consumption, I'm out. I'll finally make the jump to another OS and forego Windows. It's been serving me well over the past 12 years that I have had my own computer, but if they cannot get their act together, they lose my custom. I am not even asking for much, just that the damn OS work fine as a stock version with the stock amount of RAM I get for an average price. This has been the case with all flavours of Windows until now, but is no longer the case with Vista. When I bought my computer, it had 1Go of RAM and Vista pre-installed. As is, it did not run fine. If you tell me that's "normal", then Vista is not meant for the average market of lusers like me. And if you tell me that's not going to change with the next version, I'll finally get over my laziness and use a competitive product.

switched from XP to vista a month and a half ago, 64bits. Upgrading from 2Gb to 6Gb of RAM in the process, trimming down vista from superfluously needed "improvements" took a bit of time but once done I had a fast, stable OS. I couldn't live with the hassle of vista lack of consistancy in menus, control panel, UI, it really feels half finished to me with bits and pieces needlessly hidden, made purposedfully hard to find/tweak/desactivate, or still "XP themed". For instance, who needs a 6Gb swap file when you have 6 Gb of RAM? Why make it so hard to modify for a seasoned XP user?
windows 7 RC 64 is much better and actually feels and looks like a new, consistant OS with logically chained menus. I'm not that set on performances though, as I feel them a bit behind what vista 64 offers me.

!luc

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

Nope. Like I said, I have very simple needs.

I agree, 12 megs of ram should be all you need. Just make sure to get a text-only browser, since Vista isn't the only useless resource hog you need to look out for nowadays. The internet's full of them too. You know, high-res pictures, sound, flash, streaming content...all they do is slow down your computer!

But it looks like you've already fallen for some of the industry's ludicrous marketing. Sombebody actually convinced you that to upgrade from Windows 95 to XP you should get 21x the ram? Ridiculous!

Originally Posted by Threak

Click to expand...

I agree, 12 megs of ram should be all you need. Just make sure to get a text-only browser
I was running IE on my Windows '95 on 12Mb RAM. I still use text-based program when they make more sense (mail, Usenet) but I am not adverse to pretty things. I fully recognize that Windows '95 GUI was a massive improvement on all generations of Windows before, for example. Granted, I don't like it when somebody forces ressources-hogging to me when they don't bring much useful in exchange (in my opinion, there has been no major improvement of the Windows GUI since '95 - I still like it though). I don't like when they do that but I don't mind much, so long as it still runs decently on an average PC ("average" at the date I bought it) out-of-the-box. If I wanted to have to spend hours tweaking my setup to make it work, I would not be using Windows. So Vista is ressource-hogging for no useful reason for me that I can discern. Annoying, but I can live with that as I have with all previous new versions of Windows. What I cannot live with is when it does not work out-of-the-box on an average computer. It is the first version of Windows doing this for me.

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

So, what you're telling me is that to get something like a service as decent as I could get with '95 on 12Mb of RAM or XP on 256Mb, I need 2 Go - 8 times as much as XP? Expense aside, thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather pass and move on to an OS that's not such an insane ressource-hog.

No, thats NOT what I'm telling you. Now you are just what, being purposefully ignorant?

I'm telling you Vista is a completely different program, that does way more stuff than XP. is faster, more stable, allows you to use current hardware to its full extent, and uses more memory to do so. If you want to use and enjoy Vista, it uses more memory. If you'd rather continue to be an idiot about it, continue on as you are.

Well, if you're telling me they haven't fixed the insane ressource consumption, I'm out. I'll finally make the jump to another OS and forego Windows. It's been serving me well over the past 12 years that I have had my own computer, but if they cannot get their act together, they lose my custom.

Click to expand...

A: It is not "insane resource consumption".

B: Aside from LINUX, you are **** out of luck if you want something to run well on less than 1GB of RAM. I wouldn't try it with OSX either.

I am not even asking for much, just that the damn OS work fine as a stock version with the stock amount of RAM I get for an average price. This has been the case with all flavours of Windows until now, but is no longer the case with Vista. When I bought my computer, it had 1Go of RAM and Vista pre-installed. As is, it did not run fine. If you tell me that's "normal", then Vista is not meant for the average market of lusers like me. And if you tell me that's not going to change with the next version, I'll finally get over my laziness and use a competitive product.

Click to expand...

No, I am telling you that you should have maybe read something about computers or asked around before you bought your computer. We all could have told you before you bought it that Vista wasn't going to run well on 1GB of RAM. That is not a stock amount of RAM that makes sense for a new computer. That is a computer probably sold with the intention of upgrading the RAM. Vista is indeed for "average users". But at the moment 2-4GB of RAM is average. You just are clinging to some weird notion that you know what a computer needs, and the rest of the world has to follow your lead. With current hardware, running today's OS's, either Windows, or Mac, I'd say that 2GB is a rough MINIMUM of RAM. I'd say that the AVERAGE computer running OSX or Vista is going to have 4 GB of RAM.

Get a copy of Linux/Ubuntu if you have problems with it. Thats pretty much what you are stuck with. Or a Mac Mini (which I'd reccomend with 2GB of RAM minimum). But for less than $50 I've already solved your problem. You are the one who's being ignorantly stubborn about it. You don't need to spend much more money, you just needed to be smarter with it originally, and now its going to cost you a couple more GB or RAM to correct your mistake.

Originally Posted by nate10184

Click to expand...

Glad this topic came up. Does anyone have experience using 64-bit Vista?

I'd like to have the 64 bit version for the graphics software I use but have heard some bad things about backwards compatibility.

I have Vista X64. Love it. And I am/was also a mac user. While i miss my mac for various reasons, Vista 64 has actually been more stable.

The Version of Photoshop I had had issues when I first installed it, right after the beta period. Likely resolved now but I haven't gone back to check. Will be getting a newer rev of PS soon enough.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

I'm telling you Vista is a completely different program, that does way more stuff than XP.
I got that. What I'm telling you is: I don't need that "more stuff", it's not useful to me. I just need it to run OK. I don't mind that there is useless (to me) "more stuff" there as long as it does not impair my basic need: that it run OK.

Vista is indeed for "average users".

Click to expand...

You just are clinging to some weird notion that you know what a computer needs

Click to expand...

No. I lament the fact that OSs are such ressource-hogs, but I don't cling to that. I cling to the notion that an OS aimed at the average user should run smoothly out-of-the-box on the computer it is sold with. I don't think that's too much to ask.

You don't need to spend much more money, you just needed to be smarter with it originally, and now its going to cost you a couple more GB or RAM to correct your mistake.

Click to expand...

Explain what I should have done differently. I am not a computer guy. My computer died, I needed a new one. I went to 2 or 3 shops, all computers came with Vista. I had no problem with that since Windows has always been OK for my needs. I came home with a middle-of-the-line laptop, Vista pre-installed. I was not expecting it not to run correctly on it. That's a new one, no previous version of Windows (and I have had many) has done that for me. If it is "normal", then I'm out. If that means I have to learn how to run a Linux, then so be it, it's not as if I had much choice apparently.

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

I cling to the notion that an OS aimed at the average user should run smoothly out-of-the-box on the computer it is sold with. I don't think that's too much to ask.
I don't think this is the 'best' approach to buying a computer. When you're buying a computer, you're basically paying for the parts and for people to put together the parts. They will sell any configuration that is profitable, not limited to configurations of parts that will run smoothly. To SFize this mindset, consider this clothing analogy. Just because people put together shirts and sell them doesn't mean that they will fit you straight off the rack. You either modify them at a tailor or you buy a different cut from the getgo.

Not sure why everyone is having bootup issues with Vista...must have a lot of bloatware still on their HP/Dell/Sony etc. Once trimmed down (msconfig boot list, pc-decrapifier, defrag etc) Vista is extremely fast. My Vista boots up in under 15 seconds. Vista is actually the most stable OS I've ever worked on as well. In the last 2 years it crashed once due to a hardware malfunction; the video card fan got stuck and overheated.

I'll admit that the PC manufacturers messed up 2 or so years ago by selling underpowered laptops with slow (and hot) processors and the very BARE minimum amounts of ram. People complained because it was slow, and it WAS. Vista was not meant to be run on such poor hardware, but manufacturers needed to get rid of their existing stock of crap and tried to capitalize on the new and pretty Vista to sell more units.

I have 4gb of ram and at idle my Vista uses 900mb. Etienne, you NEED more ram in order to use Vista comfortably (at least another gig and that costs around $20....).

It's amazing how well people buy into the sensationalized bullshit peddled by "Hi, I'm a Mac" and others. Yeah Vista isn't perfect but it works more than well enough for me and everyone I've recommended get a good PC with Vista. If you're really against Vista I believe Dell will let you save $100 or so and load Ubuntu on your machine.

I was just saying that anyone who did the bare minimum of research when buying a new computer with Windows Vista would have known that Vista needs more than 1GB of ram to run smoothly. Its not like it was a surprise. Manufacturers recieved a lot of flak for "dumpung" Vista into old stock computers that didn't really have the capability to run it well. But yeah, We all knew before Vista came out that to do what it does, it needs more RAM.

I still think that considering you are running a computer as a typewriter, you would be better served with Linux/Ubuntu. If you arent doing anything that Windows or OSX is tailored for, theres really no reason for you to pay for either of them.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

I was just saying that anyone who did the bare minimum of research when buying a new computer with Windows Vista would have known that Vista needs more than 1GB of ram to run smoothly. Its not like it was a surprise. Manufacturers recieved a lot of flak for "dumpung" Vista into old stock computers that didn't really have the capability to run it well. But yeah, We all knew before Vista came out that to do what it does, it needs more RAM.

I still think that considering you are running a computer as a typewriter, you would be better served with Linux/Ubuntu. If you arent doing anything that Windows or OSX is tailored for, theres really no reason for you to pay for either of them.

I think we're on the same wavelength...

Originally Posted by whiteslashasian

Click to expand...

I think we're on the same wavelength...

Its just common sense. It amazes me that people will invest what to me, is a significant amount of money in a product that they don't know what it does or what it needs to operate. Basically its like going into a car dealership without knowing anything about a car, buying one without test driving it, and then being upset that it isn't the car you expected or needed. I just don't get how thats the fault of the manufacturer. Theres likely nothing wrong with the computer in question, other than the fact that it needs a little more ram to run Vista properly. Something that should have been apparent at time of purchase. Its not as if anyone was trying to hide the fact that Vista uses more ram. I bet the salesperson even recommended it at time of purchase...

Originally Posted by whiteslashasian

Click to expand...

Etienne, you NEED more ram in order to use Vista comfortably (at least another gig and that costs around $20....).
I think what I really need is changing the OS. See, it's like this. You guys tell me I was a fool to expect an average computer to work out-of-the-box with its pre-installed OS. Fair enough. That assumption, on the face of it, did not strike me as unreasonable. It also had worked fine for my 4 previous computers. I'll accept your word that it now is unreasonable to make such an assumption. If indeed, that's too much to expect from now on, and if, as TS says, this will not be solved in any way with Windows 7, I don't see any other solution than getting rid of Windows in the future. I don't see what good it would do me to try and solve my problem temporarily only to get screwed again in a few months. If from now I have to work and tweak for my computer to function, I might as well get an OS better suited for my needs and less obese. I was staying with Windows because it's OK for what I need and works fine out-of-the-box. If it's not reasonable anymore to expect it to be OK out-of-the-box, then it's not suitable anymore for an average luser like me and I'll just accept that and change.

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Click to expand...

Its not as if anyone was trying to hide the fact that Vista uses more ram. I bet the salesperson even reccomended it at time of purchase...

No.

Originally Posted by Étienne

Click to expand...

I think what I really need is changing the OS.

See, it's like this. You guys tell me I was a fool to expect an average computer to work out-of-the-box with its pre-installed OS. Fair enough. That assumption, on the face of it, did not strike me as unreasonable. It also had worked fine for my 4 previous computers. I'll accept your word that it now is unreasonable to make such an assumption.

If indeed, that's too much to expect from now on, and if, as TS says, this will not be solved in any way with Windows 7, I don't see any other solution than getting rid of Windows in the future. I don't see what good it would do me to try and solve my problem temporarily only to get screwed again in a few months.
If from now I have to work and tweak for my computer to function, I might as well get an OS better suited for my needs and less obese. I was staying with Windows because it's OK for what I need and works fine out-of-the-box. If it's not reasonable anymore to expect it to be OK out-of-the-box, then it's not suitable anymore for an average luser like me and I'll just accept that and change.


No.

See, you keep saying "average" computer. You seem sort of stuck on that. 1GB of ram is not "average". It is the absolute bare minimum that a modern computer with either OSX or Vista needs to turn on. You did not buy an "average" computer. You may have paid an "average price" for it, but again, that is not Windows fault. It is unreasonable to compare a 10 year old computer's needs to a new computer's needs. If your ten year old computer works, stick with it. If its broken, you have to allow for the fact that for the rest of the world, time didn't stand still. I highly doubt that you could even have an enjoyable internet experience with your old Windows 95 box anymore. Let alone recognize any of the peripherals like printers, modems, monitors, cameras, music devices, hard drives, or anything else that "average" people use their computers for.

You are *not* the average computer user either. You are a specialized computer user who is specialized, not at the high end of the spectrum, but at the low end of the spectrum. You desire a computer that is fast and does nothing but surfs the internet and writes e-mails. You are basically an old person. You are uninterested in any operating system that does most of what most people require or want-other than those two things. You don't want it to run anything in the background, you dont want anything backing up, streamlining, or indexing your files for easier search. Basically you want the bare minimum file storage and connectivity functions. There *are* inexpensive internet only computers out there for you. They won't be running either Vista or OSX. They will be running Lindows/Linux/Ubuntu or something like that, because What you are asking Windows to do NOW is about 1/20th of what it's for, and no, you really can't trim all that fat.

It might shock and dismay you that our entire conversation, on my end, has taken place on my telephone! Egads! It also has a camera and a calculator, and a whole host of other useful things... This is fairly common. It has roughly 50 times more ram than your Win95 box, surfs the internet faster, and supports newer and faster forms of storage and data transfer, which many, dare I say "average" people use and require.

I just blew your mind, didn't I?